The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-05-04
THE ATTACK ON DILLON.

He Promises to Prove that the EDITOR of the
London Times Is Fiar.
LONDON, May 3-Charles Eaward Lewis.
Conservative member for North Antrim, in the
House of Commons, this afternoon, called the
attention of the House to the breach of privilege
committed by the London Times in article
charging John Dillon with having told false
hood when he denied that papers allegations
that he was an accomplice of Sheridan, the In
vincible. In this article the Times declares that
Mr. Dillon, in his denial, had either presented to
Parliament tissue OF fctions re had never
taken the trouble to examine. or had reached
vet lower depth of dishonesty. Sher-
idau was simultaneously the organizer
of murderous association and the close COM
panion Of the leaders of the constitutional agi-
taton. ''Mr. Dillon the Times article
tinues, however convenient his memory, can
hardly have succeeded in entirely forgetting
their personal relations. Mr.. Dillon has been
called the Chevalier Bayard OF the Irish Nation
al League. He has been supposed to stand
apart in public esteem from the rank and file of
his party. What confidence can now be reposed
in his disclaimers which show the best of the
Parnellite party to be destitute of that quality
which Englishmen rightly prize above all others
an Indispensable foundation of characterF
Mr. Lewis concluded as follows: These whole
sale charges of lying against Mr.. Dillon consti-
tute distinct breach of privilege. / move that
the House take notice of them"
Philip Albert MuntZ. another Conservative,
and member for the Lamworth division of War
wickshire. seconded Mr. Lewis's motion.
Speaker Peel, answering Mr.. Dillon. said If
the House decided that the article quoted by Mr.
Lewis was a breach of privilege, motion could
be made calling the offenders to the bar OF the
House to answer for their condnct in commit
ting the breach.
The Rt Hon. w H Smith First Lord of the
Treasury. behalf of the government, moved
that the House adjourn in order that questions
of fact ight be argued.
Mr.. Dillon said he desired to have the ques-
ton brought to an issue right off. He denied
the right of Mr. Lewis to take course putting
him the defensive until his accuser was
brought to the bar of the House. When the
publisher of the Times, Mr. Dillon declared.
stood at the bar, he (Mr. Dillon) would prove
MIN as base and cowardly a liar as ever existed.
EParnellite cheers
Mr.. Sexton said the Irish party had been chal-
lenged much lately, and had been tauuted with
not taking up the challenge Now they
took ii up and insisted upon inquiry bv the
House. lCheers. 1t for assembly of
English gentlemen to say whether. for the tut
ure its Irish members should be exposed to the
attack of every ruffian calling himself the editor
of newspaper The House should let the
"Then." said Mr.. Sexton, ''let the Times bring
forward it's battalions of forgers and liars. The
Irish members will prove that they have been
subjected to system of moral assassination
They will be able fully to justify themselves"
Cheers.
Mr. Bradlaugh opposed Mr.. Smiths motion to
adjourn, and charged the government with
niving at the offering of Mr.. Lewls's motion.
and that the debate a concerted plan to
place in the hands OF the Conservatives weapons
to assist them IN the passage of the odious CO.
ercion bill
Sir William Vernon Harcourt said that though
ostensib~ Mr. Lews's motion against the
Times it in reality raised for the purpose of
attacking Mr.. Dillon, and was a covert method
of accusation by section of the MON bers of
the House against another. Yet, when the
Irish members asked for an instant opportunity
of meeting the charges, it was sought by the
government to adjourn the House.
Mr. Holmes, Attorney general for Ireland, de-
MED that the motion made with the con-
nivance of the government He had never heard
of the motion until it was made. On behalf of
the government, ne disciaimed any intention of
postponing the debate for party purposes. If
the publisher of the Times at called to
the bar of the House, the House would be un-
able to hear evidence in support of the charges,
and would be required to decide the question
off hand. In the absence cf the publisher or
other responsible person. motion to adj iourn for
inquiry was the best way to arrive at the truth.
Mr. Gladstone opposed the motion to ad journ.
He said NJ Dillon had been charged with hav-
ing stated a deliberate falsehood while address
ing the House. If anything constituted breach
of privilege this was breach. The parties ac
cused demanded an immediate trial. It was i'm
possible that the House could resist. It had al
ways been the custom for the House itself to
proceed to DEAL without delay, with a motion
lating to a breach of privilege, afterwards in
special cases. appointing select committee of
inquiry
4 division was then taken on the motion to ad
iourn, resulting IN a vote of 2l3 in favor of the
motion and ia against it.
Mr.. Smith moved that on Thursday the House
resume consideration of the question.
Mr.. Sexton moved that it be taken up to NOR
Mr.. Dillon demanded to know whether the
editor of the Times would be brought to the
bar of the House.
Mr.. Smith could only say that the wisest
course would be followed. 1t was then agreed
to take the question up again tomorrow.
The amendment to the crimes BILL that the
crown law officers instead of magistrates shall
conduct inquiries into crimes, was rejected by
vote of 258 TO 176. The amendment that maeis-
ces was accepted by the government without di-
vision.
The close of the debate left all sides in doubt
to to-morrows DEVELOPMENTS. Mr.. Lewis
brought forward the question against the advice
of the Conservative whips, who warned him it
might lead TO great delay in the progress of the
crimes bill. The mnisterialists would like to
have a committee OF INQUIRY appointed. but
foreseeing that a debate over the formation of
such comraittee would block the crimes bill,
they are ready 70 let the whole question drop if
the opposition will permit.
The Ministers had conference, tonight, with
Attorney general Webster and Solicitor general
Clark the question whether the government
breach of privilege, and that the matter
therefore at an end. If Mr.. Smith should an
nounce that no breach of privilege had occurred,
Mr.. Gladstone is expected appeal to the
and order that the publisher of the Times must
avow his error and apologize. Whatever hap
pens, the Psrnellites feel confident of scoring
triumph.
MAJOR SAUNDERSON.